科學寫作在自然科學教學與評量的應用－以電影中酸鹼現象之觀察與解釋為例
摘 要
本研究旨在從系統功能語法的觀點，探討學生在觀看影片後之科學寫作對其學習的影響，進而討論科學寫作在自然科學教學與評量的應用。
研究的進行採用準實驗研究法，對象係台北市某市立國中八年級66位學生，隨機分配實驗組與對照組；所有學生在閱讀某版本教科書之酸鹼單元科學文本後，實驗組學生在觀看電影影片的同時進行科學寫作，而對照組學生僅觀賞電影影片。收集兩組學生酸鹼單元前後測成績及其學科學習成就作為學生背景資料。科學寫作內容以及物性分析為主，並將量化後資料以敘述性統計、t檢定、Pearson相關等進行分析。研究發現如下：
一、看電影寫科學，學生寫出的觀察小句數多於推論小句數，物質過程的使用次數最高；詞彙密度平均值為3.14，其中29%為科學內容詞數比例。
二、雖然科學寫作內容的精緻度與國文科學習成就顯著相關，但科學寫作中的小句數、內容詞數以及科學內容詞數等，與自然科學習成就的相關值高於與國文科的相關。
三、科學寫作對學生學習有幫助。實驗組學生在酸鹼單元的後、前測差異顯著高於對照組學生。儘閱讀科學文本即可提升高分組學生在酸鹼單元的學習成就，但閱讀科學文本加上科學寫作則使高、低分組學生的學習成就皆呈顯著進步。
四、評量科學寫作可採計寫作的內容詞數、小句數以及級轉移頻率，或以合併「觀察」與「推論」小句之「小句級分」來建立評量規準。
最後，根據上述的研究結果對科學教學與研究提出討論與建議。

Applying Science Writing in Science Teaching and Assessing -- An Example of Describing and Explaining of the Acid-Base Phenomenon in the Movie
Abstract
Drawn on the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), the present study aims to explore the effects of applying science writing in science teaching and assessing.
A Quasi-experiment was designed. After reading a text extracted from the science textbook, the experimental group was asked to accomplish science writing task as watching movie film, while the control group just watched movie film only. These students’ performance of acid-base tests and academic achievement including Chinese and Science were collected. Students’ science writing texts were analyzed by the grammatical system of transitivity in SFL and the relations between science writing and learning achievement were analyzed. The major findings were as follows:
1. In the text of students’ science writing, observational clauses were more than explanatory ones, the average lexical density was 3.14, where 29% was science content words.
2. Students’ science writing text was significant correlated with their academic achievement in Chinese and Science. However the coefficient of the later was higher than the former.
3. The experimental group performed better than the control group in the achievement test. Reading the science text promoted high-grade students’ learning achievement, while reading the science text accompanied with science writing promoted both high- and low-grade students’ achievements.
4. The combinations of the amount of content words, clauses and rank-shift, observational and explanatory clauses could be serve as possible rubrics for assessing the quality of students’ science writing.
Issues and implications in science teaching of the above findings were discussed, and suggestions were proposed for further study.

參考文獻
一、 中文部分︰　
丁信中（2004）.“對話即是資料：利用互動式原案來評量學生的科學推理” 於洪振方總校閱之促進理解之科學評量：人本建構取向觀點，P 105-107。台北:心理出版社。
中央研究院 CKIP（詞庫小組）（1995）：“研究院語料庫的內容及說明”, 中文詞知識庫小組,技術報告 p95-02, 中央研究院, 1995。
尤雪瑛(2000)︰從篇章語法觀點談英語連接詞的功能及其教法。台北︰政大。(http://highschool.english.nccu.edu.tw/paper.htm)
王信智(2001)︰應用資訊檢索技術於科學寫作作品評量之探究。臺南師範學院資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
朱怡霖（2004）.中文斷詞及專有名詞辨識之研究。國立台灣大學資訊工程所碩士論文。台北。
林俊智(民92)：以系統功能語言學觀點探討不同課文結構對科學文章的理解─以溫度與熱為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
俞士汶、朱學峰、王惠、張芸芸（1998）.現代漢語語法信息辭典。北京:清華大學出版社。
洪振方總校閱，丁信中等（譯）（2004）。促進理解之科學評量：人本建構取向觀點。台北。心理出版社。
胡壯麟、朱永生、張德彔(1989)。系統功能語法概論。湖南：湖南教育出版社。
唐偉成（2004）.“寫出探究：以寫作作為實作表現的量測” 於洪振方總校閱之促進理解之科學評量：人本建構取向觀點，P 253-255。台北:心理出版社。
翁育誠（2004）.以蘊含序列與詞彙密度兩種結構探討科學課文結構與閱讀理解的關係－以溫度與熱為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。

國中自然與生活科技教科書八下（2003）。南一書局出版。
教育部（2003）：國民中小學九年一貫課程基本能力指標。
許佩玲（2004）.從系統功能語言學觀點探討不同圖文整合方式之科學課文對閱讀理解的影響– 以月相單元為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳英豪，吳裕益（1990）。測驗與評量。高雄：復文圖書出版社。
程琪龍（1994）。系統功能語法導論。汕頭大學出版社。
簡聿成（2004）。“「你認為這是什麼意思？」利用結構式晤談來評量科學理解”於洪振方總校閱之促進理解之科學評量：人本建構取向觀點，P 79-83。台北:心理出版社。
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.（2004）：火山爆發影片。得利影視股份有限公司。

二、 英文部分︰
AAAS（1993）： Benchmarks for science literacy.New York：Oxford University Press.
Archbald,D.A.,＆F.M.Newmann,（1988）: Beyond Standardized Tests. Reston,Va. : National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Breger, D. C. (1995): The inquiry paper. Science Scope, 19(2), 27-32.
Bracht,G.H.＆Hopkins,K.D.（1968）：Comparative validities of essay and objective test. Research Paper No.20.Boulder: University of Colorado, Laboratory of Educational Research.
Brewer,M.F.,＆Samarapungavan,A.（1991）.Children’s theories vs. scientific theories: Differences in reasoning or differences in knowledge? In R.R. Hoffman ＆ D.S. Palermo（Eds.）,Cognition and the symbolic processes（p.209-232）. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carter, P. L., Ogle, P. K., & Royer, L. B. (1993): Learning logs: What are they and how do we use them? In N. L. Webb & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom (pp. 87-96). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Champangne,A.B.（1996）: Assessment and science curriculum design.In R.W.Bybee（Ed.）,National Standards and the Science Curriculum: Callenges, Opportunities,and Recommendations（pp.75-82）.Colorado Springs,CO:BSCS
Champagne,A.B.,Kouba,V.L.,＆Hurley,M.（1999）: Assessing inquiry. In J.Minstral＆E.vander Zee（Eds.）,Examining inquiry in science teaching and learning. Washington,DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Coffman,W.E.（1971）. Essay examinations. In R.L. Thorndike, ed, Educational Measurement, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Demastes-Southerland,S（1994）.Factors influencing conceptual change in evolution: A longitudinal, multicase study. Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Ediger, M. (1998): Writing and the pupil in the science curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 426 846)
Fulwiler, T. (1985): Writing and learning, grade three. Language Arts, 65, 55-59.
Gant, P. (1990): To learn or to memorize: That is the question. In The science and writing connection (Clearinghouse No. SE052005) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 342 611).
Garber,G.（1967）: The digital computer simulates human rating behavior. In J.T.Flynn and H.Garber, Assessing behavior: Readings in educational and psychological measurement. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
Glaser,R,（1994,July）.Application and theory: Learning theory and the design of learning environments. Keynote Address presented at the 23rd international Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid,Spain.
Halliday , M.A.K. & Martin , J.R. (1993): Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.
Halliday , M.A.K. (1993): Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M.A.K., Halliday & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (p.69～85). London: The Falmer Press.
Haury, D. L. (1993). Assessing student performance in science. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.ED 359 068
Hogan,K（1997, March）. Comparative cognitive models of teacher student and student/ student knowledge-building discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago.
Klein, S.P.＆Hart, F.M.（1968）：The nature of essay grades in law school. Research Bulletin 68-6. Princeton. N.J. : Educational Testing Service.
Kulm, G. (1994): Mathematics assessment: What works in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Langer, J. A. (1986): Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lederman,N.G.（1992）. Students’ and teacher’s conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1029-1051
Marshall, J.C.（1967）：Composition errors and essay examination grades reexamined. American Educational Research Journal,4（4）,375-385.
Marshall, J.C.＆Powers, J.M.1969：Writing readability,composition errors, and essay grades. University of Missouri - St. Louis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education,Los Angeles.
Marzano,Pickering＆McTighe（1993）. Assessing Student Outcomes：Performance Assessment Using the Dimensions of Learning Model. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexandria,Virginia.
Miller, L. D. (1991): Writing to learn mathematics. Mathematic Teacher, 84(7), 516-521.
Mitchell,R.（1992）.Testing for Learning : How New Approaches to Evaluation Can Improve American Schools. New York: The Free Press.
National Commission on Testing and Public Policy（1991）.From Gatekeeper to Gateway: Transforming Testing in America. Chestnut Hill, Mass.:National Commission on Testing and Public Policy.
Newell, G. E. (1984): Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(3), 265-287.
Novak, J.D.,＆Gowin, D.B.（1984）Learning how to learn. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Peasley K. L., Rosean, C. L., & Roth, K. J. (1992): Writing-to-Learn in a Conceptual Change Science Unit (Elementary Subjects Center Series No. 54). East Lansing, MI: Center for the Learning and teaching of Elementary Subject. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356 143)

Rivard, P. L. (1994): A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.
Samarapungavan, A.（1992）.Children’s judgments in theory choice tasks:Scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition,45, 1-32.
Scannell, D.P.＆Marshall, J.C.（1966）：The effect of selected composition errors on grades assigned to essay examinations. American Educational Research Journal, 3,125-130.
Shelley, A. C. (1998). The write approach. Science Scope, 22(1). 36-39.
Shepard,L.A.（April 1989）: “ Why We Need Better Assessments.” Educational Leadership 46,7:4-9.
Stepanek, J., Denise, J., & Sherman, L. (Ed.). (1997): Assessment strategies to inform science and mathematics and instruction. It’s just good teaching. Internet. Jun. 13, 2001, Available: http://www.nwrel.org/msec/book4pdf.pdf
Tagliacozzo, R. (1978): Some stylistic variations in scientific writing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 136-140.
Tucknott, J. M. (1998). The effects of writing activities on children’s understanding of science. Unpublished M. Ed. project. Victoria. BC: University of Vietoria.
Unsworth , L. (2001)︰Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum︰Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Open University Press.
Wotring, A. M. & Tierney, R. (1981): Two Studies of Writing in High School Science. Classroom Research Study No. 5 (Clearinghouse No. SE043746). (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 197 352)
Wiggins,G.（1989）. “ Teaching to the （Authentic）Task.”Educational Leadership 46,7:41-47.
Wignell, P., Martin, J.R. ＆ Eggins, S.(1993): The Discourse of Geography: 　Ordering and Explaining the Experiential World. In M.A.K. Halliday, & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (p.136～165).London: The Falmer Press.　
Yore, L. D. (1996): Write-to-learn science strategies for preservice elementary teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398 060)
Yore, L. D., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (1999, January): Writing-to-Learn science : breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. International Conference of the Association for Educating Teachers in Science ,Austin, TX, 14-17.